The judgment below

Among them, the part against Defendant A, B, and C and the part of the additional collection against Defendant D, E, and F shall be reversed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B, who was sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year and six months, three years of probation, two years of probation, two years of probation, two years of community service, confiscation, 40 million won, three years of probation, two years of probation, two years of probation, two years of probation, confiscation, 10 million won, three years of probation, three years of probation, three years of probation, two years of probation, two years of confiscation, two years of confiscation, two additional collection, two million won of confiscation, two years of probation, two years of probation, two years of probation, two years of probation, two years of probation, two years of probation, two years of probation, two years of confiscation, confiscation, two years of confiscation, two years of confiscation, two years of probation, two years of confiscation, two years of probation, one million won of confiscation, one million won of confiscation, one million won of five million won of penalty, and ten years of imprisonment).

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 ex officio) The grounds for confiscation and additional collection, such as whether a person is subject to confiscation or an amount of additional collection, are not related to the constituent elements of a crime, and it is not necessary to prove strict facts, but also necessary to be recognized by evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Do9858, Apr. 7, 2006). Meanwhile, in order to issue confiscation and additional collection under Article 134 of the Criminal Act, the requirements for confiscation and additional collection are related to the criminal facts for which the prosecution was instituted. As such, the court may not impose confiscation or additional collection as to the facts not found in the criminal facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4391, Aug. 20, 200), but the court of the lower judgment and this court were duly adopted and investigated by evidence from around 3, 2013; i.e.,,, Defendants A and C from around 2012 to around 3, 13013, etc.